i can't understand what the methodology here is, or why the hell Cornell students work so hard while NYU is fun central. it seems like T14 schools would be at the top, mottled by T4s where gunners want to transfer, and packed in by the T1 and T2.

OP: There's an old saying from men far wiser than me: LESS IS MORE.

----------

Anyways to placate you and answer your question, it would actually seem most logical to see T2/T3 at the top where biglaw is a possibility but difficult to obtain. At T14 and even T1 everyone is going to get SOMETHING so it is not essential to be even in the top half the class. T2/T3 you have a degree that can get you in the door but you HAVE to be high in your class. At T4 you're largely screwed no matter what you do.

In addition, since all the curricula are the same, wouldn't it make sense that the (SUPPOSEDLY) brightest people need to study less to learn the same material?

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: JeNeSaisLaw on November 27, 2007, 07:51:51 PM

i can't understand what the methodology here is, or why the hell Cornell students work so hard while NYU is fun central. it seems like T14 schools would be at the top, mottled by T4s where gunners want to transfer, and packed in by the T1 and T2.

It's very accurate.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: iscoredawaitlist on November 27, 2007, 08:02:29 PM

Well just a theory I guess, but if you say that Top schools focus more on "thinking" like a lawyer, and lower schools focus more on "learning" (black letter) law, then I think you have a general answer. Studying more doesn't necessarily help when the object is to think and conceptualize something, but it DOES help if you're trying to memorize and that kind of thing.

I can't explain Cornell.

I think conventional wisdom about people working harder at lower ranked schools because it's harder to get jobs may be correct, but I'm not really sure how much of a difference it makes. Fear can only motivate so much for so long.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: moonpie on November 27, 2007, 08:32:27 PM

it could be that cornellians are less efficient when studying. or that the psychology of cornell kids leads them to overstate how much they study, or for NYU people to underestimate how much they study.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: GCoop. on November 27, 2007, 09:00:48 PM

Come to Michigan and you can not study for 19-20 hours of the day, too!

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: GCoop. on November 27, 2007, 09:05:18 PM

right after i'm done not studying, i usually play racquetball or go to the movies. life is great here.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: gowi on November 28, 2007, 06:35:21 AM

I seriously hope this study is of first semester first year law students. Because if its not, and this is average time spent studying every day throughout law school (not exam crunch time) 5 hours spent studying per day should be a huge red flag that maybe law school and the legal profession is not the right choice for you. Its not rocket science people.

So you're saying 5 hours a day every day is excessive for someone at a T1 (not T14) school?

I'm sorry, I am very confused about why people say law school is difficult if that amount of work is considered excessive.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: rtqw on November 28, 2007, 02:22:02 PM

Do we trust the Princeton Review to do scientifically accurate polls? Do we trust law students to respond consistently and accurately? I'm not sure if I do on either count.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: Pearl on November 28, 2007, 03:45:30 PM

GCoop see ya at bowling tomorrow for one of my 21 hrs per day of not studying

Michigan = the greatest

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: GCoop. on November 28, 2007, 05:28:40 PM

GCoop see ya at bowling tomorrow for one of my 21 hrs per day of not studying

Michigan = the greatest

Hopefully I don't get drunk, fall down and hit my head while sliding fifteen feet down the lane this time while I'm not studying.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: Pearl on November 28, 2007, 06:15:31 PM

If you do I am so taking a picture and posting it on facebook while I'm not studying.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: gowi on November 29, 2007, 05:16:16 AM

Hey Matthies, you really should write a book. Everything you have written in this thread has been so insightful. You could give Turrow a run for his money. You've made me feel much better about law school. Thanks! ;D

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: gowi on November 29, 2007, 07:07:09 AM

Hey Matthies, you really should write a book. Everything you have written in this thread has been so insightful. You could give Turrow a run for his money. You've made me feel much better about law school. Thanks! ;D

LOL, thanks! I don't know how insightful it is, since it took me 4 years to fingure all this stuff out. Actually a few friends and I have tossed around the idea of writing a book for people NOT going to top schools, because all the books are written as if everyone is going to Yale or Harvard. There is a very different strategy for doing law school outside of the top schools, yet almost nothing written on it. To bad Iím not a very good writer!

there certainly is a market out there for a book like this!

I'd buy it in a heartbeat.

Title: Re: How Accurate Is This Comparative "Hours of Study Per Day" Chart?
Post by: rsr28 on November 29, 2007, 07:45:10 PM

Quote

I was at school today and sat next to two 1Lís getting ready for exams, they were quizzing each other on the black letter law of contracts. Thatís typically what you would do in UG, the point was there to know the subject, thatís not really the point in law school. You can tell people that, but they really donít get it until after they have had at least 1 semester of law school and 1 set of exams. Knowing the law is not nearly enough to do well on law school exams. Nor is it really the point. You might get 1-2 points for reciting the right law, but the majority of your points for any exam are going to come from IDing the issue and analyzing the facts as they relate to the law/issues/facts (things that you could do even if you could not remeber the exact wording of the rule). No way could you pass a law school exam just by listing the rules however.

Then again, learning the black-letter law is a PART (albeit perhaps small) of exam-taking. To me that is the only thing you could study in a study-group format effectively? So, what if they've studied the concepts on their own and are simply refreshing their memories on the b-l law? I guess I just don't think it's fair to jump to conclusions like this. Just because law theory is perhaps more important than other aspects does NOT mean you can disregard those other aspects entirely.